Yes... yes... keep Frank and Alex coming back...

Paul Heaver, Alex Davey and Frank Brooks in one Podcast? Yes please.

Early on you guys talked a bit about using ordnance and the Rage EPT, which was, oddly, something I've been trying theory build around over the last few days. I could only really come up with this.

Gamma Vet, Rage, LRS, Ordnance of your choice = 20 pts + payload.

Assuming you can get an early target lock on your preferred target and time your Rage action correctly, it's a pretty accurate shot.

Though interestingly, it might not be worth putting Extra Munitions on it, given it's going to take you 2 turns to clear stress, and probably another 2 to get another target lock and get into position again. It'll probably be dead by then.

Payload depends on what you want it to do and what the rest of your list is trying to achieve. Maybe a 1 shot reasonably accurate Assault Missile, to give you more teeth against swarms, or plasma torpedo to strip shields of a heavier target.

I *think* there's something workable in there somewhere, if it comes in cheap enough.

I've been doing similar thinking with regards to Rage serving Ordinance well. N'Dru, Cluster Missiles, Rage and Guidance Chimps, for example, is 22 points of fiery death one round..... and slightly cheaper than the typical Lone Wolf&Glitterstim version of him I've seen used for similar effect.

@Velvetelvis,

We are big boys

In honesty all comments are welcome, the more constructive the better obviously but I would rather people let us know if they thought we could do something better.

That is not to say the show will ever be able to please everyone, but we do the best job we can.

Kris

With regard to the flight deck, there are a lot of x wing podcasts around now, which is great. But a long segment discussing games in detail was fine when it was you guys, the Kessel Run and the scum and villainy chaps.

But now with all the others it equates to hours of listening to people describe their games...which is more than a bit wearing.

If a game being discussed is in some way significant (Paul Heaver discussing another's Worlds win or how player A used 3 generic starvipers to beat 3 Jumpmasters or some such) then fine. But outside of useful insights then you guys can afford to be brief.

And kudos to the podcast on that interview. Very interesting indeed.

Wave 9 is going to be scums wave it seems..

So this is something I have been thinking about a lot lately. I think it may be time to reel in the Flight Deck a little. I think these may have gotten a little long. While big events like Regionals and so on my be good to do round by round reviews, over the Flight Deck should be brief, cover the lists and things we have been doing lately, and sort of move on from there. Should an interesting combo or cool thing happen on the table, sure cover that. But I think we would serve our audience better by getting right to the meat of the matter, news and main topic.

Please.

A play by play of everyone's game isn't helpful. Instead, give us some critical analysis of what you learned or saw that might expand the way we think about the game, or improve the audience's ability to play.

So my 2 cents...

I would like the podcasts to be a bit less... Uniform? I don't know if that makes sense, but let me try to explain. It seems like every podcast is an hour and a half about what they've played recently (often with a little too much self-patting on the back, but who wouldn't do that if they had their own X-wing podcast ), a bit of discussion of the latest X-wing news, and maybe an interview. I haven't really noticed any of the podcasts that I listen to really venture too far beyond that. Like, why not have an episode where the main discussion is of what players think are the most under rated pilot and most over rated pilot? What about the same for certain upgrade types? What about a full blown discussion of what rule change/fix, if each podcast member was allowed to make one, they would make (with all of your changes applying to this "new" version of X-wing)? Or maybe even ask each podcast member to come with a build focused on an obscure upgrade (bodyguard for example) or upgrade type (bombs) where they have to try to make it as competitive as possible and ask they try to get in at least a game with it so it's a bit deeper then just theory-wing? Maybe things like this was done in your earlier podcasts (I have only been listening since probably wave 5), and I feel like some of these topics you guys bump into at times, but it's never a "THIS is what we are discussing. Be ready to defend your reasoning" type of thing. After having said all that, I want it to be known I think you do a phenomenal job as is. But, there is always room for improvement no matter how good things are!

And on the flight deck discussion- while I have no issue with time as far as listening goes, the portion discussing what players have flown recently almost always feels too long. I want to hear what was at the top tables of events, regardless of player, and even more so about any of those list that was not a "typical" list. That's interesting.

I have not gotten to the Interview yet. Just wrapping up the Mist Hunter part.

The highlight of the show so far for me was during the Jumpmaster talk. Richard starts to talk about how to counter them with rock placements and your opening. Using fundamental X-Wing knowledge to ensure favourable exchanges.

This is by far the best piece of advice I have heard for a long time.

I love the descussion on what you can build to counter another but listening to the guys getting back to talking about the far to often overlooked fundamentals of X-Wing was extremely satisfying.

It is a shame that it is often easier to talk about builds and not express how to use them, something I am guilty of. I can come up with a different idea for how to use something but I need to spend more time on trying to communicate these basics to the listeners.

So, Good Job Rich, Paul and Bob. Your two minute interlude about not just using the smallest rocks anymore and working on your approach of the Jumpmaster list and the potential for developing new openings was awesome!

I wish we spoke about X-Wing in this way more.

Kris

I think the flight deck is by far the best part of your show, particularly the commentary from MJ and Richard. People can theorize about new cards and way to use them until the cows come home and you'll never scratch the surface of what goes on in this and other forums on those topics. But flight deck is a unique glimpse into another meta and how people solved their own challenges.

I guess that puts me in the minority.

The first thing that is coming up is this didn't happen until later in the game. Clearly your opponent had already consented the first round or two of this happening. He agreed to let you do this by not correcting you the first time you did it. By not communicating your opponent consented to your play style. Heck even Paul Heaver at worlds last year moved his pilot skill 2 ships before putting out focus tokens.

This objection should have only happened on turn 1 or the first time this happens and not several rounds into it.

The TO also handled it poorly from the sound of it and should have allowed the action to occur as they had previous rounds (using the previous rounds as precedent that it was ok with the opponent then) and ruled that all further moves should be done ship by ship.

My thoughts on the situation.

I completely agree here that this entire situation was outrageous. If MJ was mislead to believe that he would be able to move all his ships at once without penalty, his opponent should have been held accountable for poor sportsmanship.

However...

No communication does not equal consent. Consent can also be taken away at any time. Ultimately, there should be an open line of communication between players throughout the entirety of the game. This should be used as a learning opportunity for all of us - there is a burden of communication on both players. If you plan on moving all like-PS ships at once, ask your opponent first if he minds. Also ask if you can continue to do it all game. If your opponent has a problem with it later, he has the right to retract consent, but should do so BEFORE you start flipping dials, otherwise he is trying to entrap you, and the TO should be called over.

In terms of the rulings made by the TO...

No if you have an issue with something you bring it up the first time otherwise, you have consented to that style of play for the game. The thing here is that this style of play of revealing multiply dials does not change the outcome of play.

This is rules manipulation at its finest, when you let someone do something until you feel its a critical moment and you pull the rules lawyer book out.

Being silent is being in agreement to this play and is consent. it's not like it took three turns before the opponent had the courage to speak out against this. If you have an issue bring it up the first time.

We've gone over this before. If an opponent consents to something, he is not obligated to continually consent to it. Nowhere does it say that you have to be consistent with allowing

No if you have an issue with something you bring it up the first time otherwise, you have consented to that style of play for the game. The thing here is that this style of play of revealing multiply dials does not change the outcome of play.

This is rules manipulation at its finest, when you let someone do something until you feel its a critical moment and you pull the rules lawyer book out.

Being silent is being in agreement to this play and is consent. it's not like it took three turns before the opponent had the courage to speak out against this. If you have an issue bring it up the first time.

There are situations where moving as a block and deciding on actions after DOES make a difference. Let's say a block of 4 TIE's hard turns, and then the pilot sees that 2 of the 4 ships don't quite have arc on the target, so he then decides to barrell roll all of them. If they were all moved one at a time, it would have been likely to take a focus on the first TIE or two, and would then not be able to barrell roll the others to get arc.

Before getting into combat range, sure, it doesn't matter, but once combat starts, it can make a difference. This is why I argue that turn 1 communication, or lack thereof, should not be taken as consent for the entire game. That is not how consent works. A simple solution is what I suggested earlier - communicate with your opponent on each turn.

No by revealing dials you are not changing the course of the game. The only examples that do not work (blocking does not as that is moving the model and not revealing) would be dropping bombs and using options to manipulate the dial. The barrel roll action you are implying was not in question, but is something that people do during the movement of the ships as well as boost. The type of situation that is being discussed is usually adding focus tokens, evades, or target locks.

In the situation that you described above, how many people would allow this to happen during the first round of play? This is similar to the guy who posted/bragged about the fact he denied shots in a game because someone had measured from different Y's for a shot when they all have the same pilot skill.

This is exactly how consent works. Consent is the voluntary action of giving approval, there are many forms of consent such as non verbal which is used in this case when an action/play style occurs you have the option to speak against the action. If you do not speak against the action/play style you are giving non verbal consent (voluntarily agreeing to allow this kind of action/play style).

In a perfect world we would all sit down for five minutes before the game and discuss things such as our styles of movement. In reality in tournaments you are often rushing to get things set up, going over your opponent's list, and planning strategy. You are also trying to ensure you have the maximum amount of time before the round ends.

No if you have an issue with something you bring it up the first time otherwise, you have consented to that style of play for the game. The thing here is that this style of play of revealing multiply dials does not change the outcome of play.

This is rules manipulation at its finest, when you let someone do something until you feel its a critical moment and you pull the rules lawyer book out.

Being silent is being in agreement to this play and is consent. it's not like it took three turns before the opponent had the courage to speak out against this. If you have an issue bring it up the first time.

There are situations where moving as a block and deciding on actions after DOES make a difference. Let's say a block of 4 TIE's hard turns, and then the pilot sees that 2 of the 4 ships don't quite have arc on the target, so he then decides to barrell roll all of them. If they were all moved one at a time, it would have been likely to take a focus on the first TIE or two, and would then not be able to barrell roll the others to get arc.

Before getting into combat range, sure, it doesn't matter, but once combat starts, it can make a difference. This is why I argue that turn 1 communication, or lack thereof, should not be taken as consent for the entire game. That is not how consent works. A simple solution is what I suggested earlier - communicate with your opponent on each turn.

No by revealing dials you are not changing the course of the game. The only examples that do not work (blocking does not as that is moving the model and not revealing) would be dropping bombs and using options to manipulate the dial. The barrel roll action you are implying was not in question, but is something that people do during the movement of the ships as well as boost. The type of situation that is being discussed is usually adding focus tokens, evades, or target locks.

In the situation that you described above, how many people would allow this to happen during the first round of play? This is similar to the guy who posted/bragged about the fact he denied shots in a game because someone had measured from different Y's for a shot when they all have the same pilot skill.

This is exactly how consent works. Consent is the voluntary action of giving approval, there are many forms of consent such as non verbal which is used in this case when an action/play style occurs you have the option to speak against the action. If you do not speak against the action/play style you are giving non verbal consent (voluntarily agreeing to allow this kind of action/play style).

In a perfect world we would all sit down for five minutes before the game and discuss things such as our styles of movement. In reality in tournaments you are often rushing to get things set up, going over your opponent's list, and planning strategy. You are also trying to ensure you have the maximum amount of time before the round ends.

Exactly. You're allowed to consent non-verbally one turn and then deny consent verbally the next. No where in the rules does it state you have to be consistent, and you're allowed to use it to your advantage.

Perform actions with your ships normally or ask your opponent for permission to move a bunch of ships and perform actions with them all simultaneously. Don't just intentionally miss triggers and expect your opponent to consent to them being performed afterwards.

The thing about TO's not punishing players for minor infractions of the finer points of the rules does not mean that a TO gets to force missed optional triggers to happen. That wording is there in order to not punish someone who thought Raider debris was legal for example or whatever.

No if you have an issue with something you bring it up the first time otherwise, you have consented to that style of play for the game. The thing here is that this style of play of revealing multiply dials does not change the outcome of play.

This is rules manipulation at its finest, when you let someone do something until you feel its a critical moment and you pull the rules lawyer book out.

Being silent is being in agreement to this play and is consent. it's not like it took three turns before the opponent had the courage to speak out against this. If you have an issue bring it up the first time.

There are situations where moving as a block and deciding on actions after DOES make a difference. Let's say a block of 4 TIE's hard turns, and then the pilot sees that 2 of the 4 ships don't quite have arc on the target, so he then decides to barrell roll all of them. If they were all moved one at a time, it would have been likely to take a focus on the first TIE or two, and would then not be able to barrell roll the others to get arc.

Before getting into combat range, sure, it doesn't matter, but once combat starts, it can make a difference. This is why I argue that turn 1 communication, or lack thereof, should not be taken as consent for the entire game. That is not how consent works. A simple solution is what I suggested earlier - communicate with your opponent on each turn.

No by revealing dials you are not changing the course of the game. The only examples that do not work (blocking does not as that is moving the model and not revealing) would be dropping bombs and using options to manipulate the dial. The barrel roll action you are implying was not in question, but is something that people do during the movement of the ships as well as boost. The type of situation that is being discussed is usually adding focus tokens, evades, or target locks.

In the situation that you described above, how many people would allow this to happen during the first round of play? This is similar to the guy who posted/bragged about the fact he denied shots in a game because someone had measured from different Y's for a shot when they all have the same pilot skill.

This is exactly how consent works. Consent is the voluntary action of giving approval, there are many forms of consent such as non verbal which is used in this case when an action/play style occurs you have the option to speak against the action. If you do not speak against the action/play style you are giving non verbal consent (voluntarily agreeing to allow this kind of action/play style).

In a perfect world we would all sit down for five minutes before the game and discuss things such as our styles of movement. In reality in tournaments you are often rushing to get things set up, going over your opponent's list, and planning strategy. You are also trying to ensure you have the maximum amount of time before the round ends.

Exactly. You're allowed to consent non-verbally one turn and then deny consent verbally the next. No where in the rules does it state you have to be consistent, and you're allowed to use it to your advantage.

Perform actions with your ships normally or ask your opponent for permission to move a bunch of ships and perform actions with them all simultaneously. Don't just intentionally miss triggers and expect your opponent to consent to them being performed afterwards.

The thing about TO's not punishing players for minor infractions of the finer points of the rules does not mean that a TO gets to force missed optional triggers to happen. That wording is there in order to not punish someone who thought Raider debris was legal for example or whatever.

Cool. Doesn't change the fact that it is a below the belt tactic to use and fewer and fewer people will respect you as a person if you are low enough to play that way.

But ya, it's legal.

So my 2 cents...

I would like the podcasts to be a bit less... Uniform? I don't know if that makes sense, but let me try to explain. It seems like every podcast is an hour and a half about what they've played recently (often with a little too much self-patting on the back, but who wouldn't do that if they had their own X-wing podcast ), a bit of discussion of the latest X-wing news, and maybe an interview. I haven't really noticed any of the podcasts that I listen to really venture too far beyond that. Like, why not have an episode where the main discussion is of what players think are the most under rated pilot and most over rated pilot? What about the same for certain upgrade types? What about a full blown discussion of what rule change/fix, if each podcast member was allowed to make one, they would make (with all of your changes applying to this "new" version of X-wing)? Or maybe even ask each podcast member to come with a build focused on an obscure upgrade (bodyguard for example) or upgrade type (bombs) where they have to try to make it as competitive as possible and ask they try to get in at least a game with it so it's a bit deeper then just theory-wing? Maybe things like this was done in your earlier podcasts (I have only been listening since probably wave 5), and I feel like some of these topics you guys bump into at times, but it's never a "THIS is what we are discussing. Be ready to defend your reasoning" type of thing. After having said all that, I want it to be known I think you do a phenomenal job as is. But, there is always room for improvement no matter how good things are!

And on the flight deck discussion- while I have no issue with time as far as listening goes, the portion discussing what players have flown recently almost always feels too long. I want to hear what was at the top tables of events, regardless of player, and even more so about any of those list that was not a "typical" list. That's interesting.

Your voices have been heard. The show will be going through some changes in the next couple of episode. Still the same, but a little shorter in some areas and new segments in others.

Thanks for listening!

I think it was this show where MJ mentioned he was looking at how to get Adv Proton Torps to work, and I believe Paul Heaver also mentioned around bumping with a scout, using tractor beam to barrel roll a ship backwards so the scout could still shoot it.

I was interested in both those things and built a list that can combine them. Scout needs to have overclocked R4 instead of normal R4, so you spend the focus with deadeye and get one back to modify the adv proton torps, with guidance chips that is pretty much guaranteed 5 hits (99.9% chance). So play one scout with adv proton torps together with the PS 3 Mist Hunter with title and tractor beam. They both have the same PS so the mist hunter can use tractor beam first.

Played a couple of games with it and managed to get it to work both games. First game a ship was out of arc so I tractor beamed it into arc at range 1 and hit it for 5 with the adv proton torps. Second game a ship was at range 2 so I tractor beamed it into range 1 and hit it for 5. The ability to move around a target and reduce it's agility seemed great combined with the firepower of the scouts. Plus once the scouts have gotten off their ordnance they make great blockers to help the mist hunter finish ships off.

Panic? THATS ME surprised no one snarkily joked about "what does Kagi do?"

He flips Vader the bird, right?

So my 2 cents...

I would like the podcasts to be a bit less... Uniform? I don't know if that makes sense, but let me try to explain. It seems like every podcast is an hour and a half about what they've played recently (often with a little too much self-patting on the back, but who wouldn't do that if they had their own X-wing podcast ), a bit of discussion of the latest X-wing news, and maybe an interview. I haven't really noticed any of the podcasts that I listen to really venture too far beyond that. Like, why not have an episode where the main discussion is of what players think are the most under rated pilot and most over rated pilot? What about the same for certain upgrade types? What about a full blown discussion of what rule change/fix, if each podcast member was allowed to make one, they would make (with all of your changes applying to this "new" version of X-wing)? Or maybe even ask each podcast member to come with a build focused on an obscure upgrade (bodyguard for example) or upgrade type (bombs) where they have to try to make it as competitive as possible and ask they try to get in at least a game with it so it's a bit deeper then just theory-wing? Maybe things like this was done in your earlier podcasts (I have only been listening since probably wave 5), and I feel like some of these topics you guys bump into at times, but it's never a "THIS is what we are discussing. Be ready to defend your reasoning" type of thing. After having said all that, I want it to be known I think you do a phenomenal job as is. But, there is always room for improvement no matter how good things are!

And on the flight deck discussion- while I have no issue with time as far as listening goes, the portion discussing what players have flown recently almost always feels too long. I want to hear what was at the top tables of events, regardless of player, and even more so about any of those list that was not a "typical" list. That's interesting.

Your voices have been heard. The show will be going through some changes in the next couple of episode. Still the same, but a little shorter in some areas and new segments in others.

Thanks for listening!

Just an idea:

You have a pretty large stable of personalities in your podcast, and that's a benefit, but I wonder if sometimes it would be beneficial to do a "report" format for new ships rather than a "roundtable" discussion. The 1 or 2 members that have played new ship X the most can talk about their experiences, perhaps with questions or comments from the rest. When everybody takes their turn, it seems like you're less likely to get deeper analysis on any given ship, you just get the initial impressions from more people.

For example, right now, a lot of analysis takes the pattern of MJ leading off with the math, then everybody going around saying how they'd like to run it. I think it would be neat to see something like MJ leading off with the math, then if the jousting values are low, the designated experts for the episode will suggest ways you could use the dial/actions/abilities to get more out of the ship, and if the values are high, the designated experts might suggest how other ships can deal with it. You do sometimes get to this organically (as described in a previous post regarding Richard's asteroid comment), but I think this sort of analysis is important enough that it merits a more intentional inclusion, given your manpower resources.

Not to steal Ed's Thunder at all but thanks for all of the suggestions guys.

Give us the next two shows to get to where we want to be and then see what you think.

I for one am extremely excited by what Ed has planned for all us NOVA fans!

Kris